Don't really look at it like that. I think our pre-9-11, law enforcement mentality was fundamentally flawed. I don't WANT to go back to that. If someone launches an attack against us, be it against civilians, an embassy, or our military assets, we should treat it like it IS, a declaration of war, and not like a hooker trying to turn a trick.

The very idea that he wants to get back to that complacent mindset that got us into this mess in the first place is distressing...

Wrong, because that's not what he said.

What Kerry actually said was that while you can't ever actually eliminate all terrorism on the planet, that it is possible to shrink it down to a level where it's no longer a direct threat to the American citizenry. He didn't say that's where we're at now. He didn't say that's where we should be now. He didn't say that's where we should've been on September 10th and didn't say that's where he should've been since September 11th. He's saying that's where he wants to take us as a nation. He's saying that he thinks he can get the war on terror to that level.

Again I say, what a bastard he is for projecting victory.

"Finally someone stood up to the little oil pimp... This guy who somehow has managed to combine Yale intellectualism with the American cowboy myth and be completely inauthentic in both roles. That's what I see in Bush... He's an empty suit."---George Carlin

Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardWrong, because that's not what he said.

What Kerry actually said was that while you can't ever actually eliminate all terrorism on the planet, that it is possible to shrink it down to a level where it's no longer a direct threat to the American citizenry. He didn't say that's where we're at now. He didn't say that's where we should be now. He didn't say that's where we should've been on September 10th and didn't say that's where he should've been since September 11th. He's saying that's where he wants to take us as a nation. He's saying that he thinks he can get the war on terror to that level.

Again I say, what a bastard he is for projecting victory.

That is nowhere near what he SAID. Stop spinning his absolutely rediculous statements to try to make him appear to be more on the ball than he is.

He's a fucking moron who is going to get many, MANY Americans and our allies overseas killed with his philosophies and policies if he is elected. If you (Kerry supporters) dont see that, then you are blind to how the real world works.

The last thing John Kerry is doing is "projecting victory." The man has been a pessimist of the highest order on both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has obvious political motives for this, of course, so make of it what you will.

Take two facts, for example.

a.) Afghanistan just held elections for the first time in God knows when (ever?)b.) The Taliban is still fighting us in Afghanistan.

Bush will focus on a), and Kerry on b).

I happen to think being the optimist in this situation is better for our country; we gotta win, after all. Kerry's in the unenviable position of hoping for US failure that he can spin into victory.

And is he really saying we can win, with that statement? Because in the modern history of terror, it has never been a nuisance. Does Kerry prefer a return to pre 9/10 terror, where a few hundred Americans were killed every so often, and Israelis daily? He doesn't make it clear in his comments.

Besides, reducing someone to a "nuisance" isn't exactly victory. It's kinda like settling. "Well, we can't beat them, but we can make them weaker."

Edit:

There's so much more to carp about in this article.

He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea ''evil'' and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program.

Which Clinton did, with the end result that they have the Bomb.

Kerry envisions appointing a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process

Which Clinton did, and was then promptly betrayed by Arafat.

In all of this, Kerry intends to use as leverage America's considerable capacity for economic aid; a Kerry adviser told me, only slightly in jest, that Kerry's most tempting fantasy is to attend the G-8 summit.

So Kerry's foreign policy is buying off our enemies. How long do you think it will take these people to realize that all they have to do is threaten to develop nukes, and they'll get a free lunch from the US in perpetuity? Kinda makes his rhetoric about opening firehouses in Baghdad ring a little hollow.

And I take back my previous statement.

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said.

So Kerry thinks terrorism was a nuisance. When? The Cole, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing... that's when terrorism was a nuisance. Pan Am 103, Munich, the Achille Lauro... nuisance. The Intifada... nuisance. Sure.

This is part of the problem with Kerry. What he said may absolutely make sense in his mind. However, he has a way of speaking that sounds condescending and like he's "dumbing it down" for us idiots out here that can't possibly comprehend his brilliance.

Now. Regardless of what he meant, what Kerry said is asinine. It leads me to believe that he just doesn't understand that the world has changed. The U.S. can't just idly sit back and toss a few cruise missiles towards terrorists when they hit us. Bush, for all his faults, gets that. He realizes that if you want to stop terrorism _ or at least severly curtail it _ you have to go on the offensive.

In a way what Kerry says is what we all want, right? A world where you don't have to be afraid of terrorism, a world where you can speak to a hostile nation and resolve things without using threats and violence...

Kerry believes that this is possible, and who knows..However the way he says it makes it sound like he is naive and hasn't been paying attention to (world) politics for the past decades. Easy pickings for his opponents since you simply have to point at his words. His defenders have to go behind the words and explain them. A debate they can never win....